Keep up with UCAN.org by following us on Twitter!
Thanks for visiting UCAN.org! Please remember our services are available because of grassroots donations from people like you. Please help us continue our work with a donation of any amount. Click here to visit our secure donation page.









Shameful testimony
Trying to push the project south onto CNF is the wrong position to take. The environmental effects there will be comparable to the effects through the Park.
The strongest position is to oppose the need for transmission in it's entirety rather than make that argument first, and then point south in case it has to be built.
Actual testimony
We sure wish you'd read our testimony because our argument is that the line is not needed -- we emphasize that repeatedly. However, we do point out that there are less expensive alternatives. From our point of view, if the Commission is trying to choose between a line through a state park and one that parallels a major interstate highway (remember, I-8 goes through the CNF) then we think the Commission should be informed about the latter. But UCAN's position has been and will continue to be that Sunrise is not needed. And that's why we have repeatedly emphasized the No-Action option.
Post new comment